chaadster

Not to speak for CFB, but I took his comments in a very specific context, namely that 50-60rpm should not be one's only option. And I agree that 4k ft climbs at 50rpm sounds excruciating and exhausting!

LGHT

OK I rode last night and it was a tough ride. I rode about 25 minutes to the base of a 8% grade that took me about 10 min to climb. I normally shift down to keep the cadence up, but this time I didn't. I just mashed and mashed it out. After about 1:45 my HR reached 160 so I had to slow down a little down. I usually try and keep it around 150 as my Z5 is around 165. I honestly thought I could push out at least 2 minutes, but I was huffing and puffing after just a minute and couldn't keep my HR down without slowing to a pace under 5mph.

So much for Bing Ring training. I'll have to add in more HIIT training on the trainer as clearly my fitness is not where it needs to be.

LGHT

Surprisingly I didn't feel "exhausted" that much. My legs where sore and tender the next day, but because most of the rides I do have a good amount of incline I didn't feel that bad. I also passed up a few guys that where in a low gear and spinning so fast they couldn't keep their butt on the seat...

Carbonfiberboy 

Well, appropriate crank torque at an appropriate cadence (whatever that is) will be a function of watts, would it not? And thus such torque will be individual even if the cadence is specified, i.e. it doesn't matter and we have no way of measuring it anyway, except by calculating back from the PM which most of us don't have anyway. So I don't understand the reasoning behind your question. What do you think is the appropriate crank torque? Or are you implying that you have no strong feelings about appropriate climbing cadence for yourself or anyone else, much less crank torque, and therefore you don't it's appropriate for me in particular to advocate any particular cadence range for anything?

Carbonfiberboy 

Why did you slow down? You should have let it rip and seen what happened. Anyway you passed the test and sure enough, yes you have enough leg strength. That's not your limiter. If 165 is your top of Z4, next time try for 168 in your freely chosen cadence and see how long you can hold it. Should be at least 4-5 minutes. Well-trained cyclists can hold about that level for 8-10 minutes. Don't just slam it up there like you did this time. Find an effort level that puts your HR up there in 3-5 minutes, holding the same speed and cadence if the gradient is even. It should be interesting to see what your freely chosen cadence would be, IOW what cadence allows you to hold that HR with the least suffering. See how many of those you can do. Recovery is the time to coast back to the bottom. Or do them on the trainer, same routine. Some people find they can ride harder on the road, others not. I much prefer my intervals on the road.

Again, do not keep your HR down! Instead, get it up and keep it up. Huffing and puffing is the norm. That's what you want. And you bet your sweet bippies it hurts. It's supposed to hurt. If it didn't hurt, you wouldn't need to do it. Ride easy on the trainer for 45 minutes the next day.

Heathpack 

I agree with the Carbon's comment below about not slowing down, continuing to push it, especially if this is a 10 minute hill for you.

My LTHR is the same as yours. Spending too much time over LTHR may leave you unable to complete a long ride. But lots of zone 4 time is excellent for CV conditioning.

Just as a matter of perspective as to what is possible, I went out last Sat and rode a strong ride with the intention of riding with intensity. It included a 30 min TT effort up a hill and also 10 min of VO2max intervals. But otherwise I was just chasing a strong friend up some hills, trying to keep up with him. That was a 45 mile ride with 4000 ft of climbing, took around 3:45 and I spent 1 hour 13 minutes in HR zone 4, which for me is from HR 152-168. I've been working on this for 6 months now, so I'm not suggesting that you go out tomorrow and try to spend an hour in HR zone 4. Just pointing out that 5 minutes or 10 minutes at a stretch is exactly what you want to be doing and expanding it from there.

Note that I am not riding like that every day. You've got to go into rides like that somewhat rested. I had been off the day prior, and had three days in a row of moderate riding before that- two lively group rides and one hour interval session on the trainer. So it was a pretty easy week for me, although I had done a very tough climbing ride the Saturday prior and was still bouncing back from that. So you've can't just try to do all intense work, you've got to find a balance to be capable of doing the intense rides too.

LGHT

Sadly 165 is my Z4 limit and my cardiologist said I should be careful and try to not push beyond that. Looking back at a few rides my last tough ride had me in Zone 4 for about 30 min of a 2 hour ride I don't recall the length of time I was in that zone at once, but I can recall it being at least 5 minutes of the 10 min tough climb.

I slowed down because once my HR got to 160 I didn't have much left and still had a lot of riding to do. The only good thing about riding those big hills is passing up the little electric cars as I hit 45-50mph on the way down!! The kids face in the back as I went by them was priceless!!

LGHT

Ok the only reason I'm riding this new route is because my old route got closed due to fire and now after the big rain there are mud slide warnings and the shoulders are pretty bad. The old route was a 32 mile loop with 2250' incline. It had some good hills, but not too steep and lots of recovery time. The new route is 25 miles and 2700' if I do 2 loops. The hills are a LOT tougher and if I push I get my HR up pretty quickly. Right now my Z4 time is only 30 minutes so I'll keep working to improve on that. The one long hill that took me 10 min has a KOM time of 2:56 so I have a lot of room for improvement lol.

Carbonfiberboy 

Well, if that's what he said, that's what you gotta do. Which, as HP points out, doesn't mean you can't go after it in Z4. Anything from 148 on up will make a big difference. You really want 157 and up for your 15 minute intervals. Start by just trying to do one interval. And don't worry about the rest of the ride. You'll do it too, just a little slower because of the interval. Starting out, I'd go 15' on, then 15' moderate work level, then another 15' interval. Work up to 3 of those, once a week.

Heathpack 

Wait? What? @LGHT, you have heart disease and a cardiologist? Yikes. I have no idea what you should do in light of that.

RChung

I have long wondered whether people who have a specific idea about appropriateness for cadence also had a specific idea about appropriate crank torque or appropriate power. If so, I wondered what that would be; if not, I wondered why cadence takes precedence over crank torque or power. You appear to have specific ideas about appropriate cadence so I thought I'd ask you. I am not trying to imply anything. I'm asking a pretty simple question (though if you don't have a specific idea about appropriate crank torque I guess the follow-up question could be a little less simple).

Carbonfiberboy 

Thanks. Yes, I suppose I do have a specific idea about crank torque. That would be whatever I think my legs can handle for the anticipated duration of the stress. So I've done a 3000' climb at 55 cadence just for fun because I was accompanying a slower rider and still wanted a good leg workout. The low cadence increased crank torque enough to produce adequate leg pain by the end of the climb. Usually I'll climb at 78-82 cadence because my 90%LT power combined with that cadence will cut crank torque enough to allow my legs to keep functioning for a couple hours anyway. I don't want to cut the torque any more by climbing at a higher cadence because my VO2max is crap, always has been.

There's a nice piece somewhere on the interwebs by a Cat 1 rider who was training to set the Mt. Washington record. He was planning to do the whole climb at 95 cadence. If I spun that fast, too much of my aerobic capacity would be going to spin my legs and my climbing power would be way off. I think high VO2max folks tend to climb at a higher cadence because they still have to limit their crank torque like I do (though their numbers are much higher), but have the aerobic capacity to multiply that torque by a much higher cadence to get more power.

So I'm saying that in my mind, power is a function of torque * cadence. If power is limited, then each rider has to find a balance between torque and cadence that suits their physiology and current goal, assuming that gearing is unlimited, which of course it's not, so we can't always choose just what we want even if we know what that is.

Does that make sense?

Heathpack 

This is a very thought-provoking question.

When I think about it, I would say that actually the recommendation to decrease strain on knees should be to minimize crank torque, which I know from my own data is pretty closely correlated with power output. So you could say, "protect your knees, decrease torque or power". Since your bike computer displays both power and cadence (at least for people with power meters), the more direct advice would be "decrease power".

Cadence on the other hand is less directly related to power output, I know that I can produce the same power output at a wide range of cadence. I can for sure produce high power with high cadence, so telling people to pedal with high cadence is not necessarily going to be an instruction that results in less strain on the knees. You'd have to tell people to pedal with high velocity and low force. But people could accomplish the same protective effect by pedaling at low velocity and low force.

When I look at my climbing data, I pedal at low cadence (60-75 rpm) and both high & low force. But I rarely pedal at high velocity and high force when going up a hill. It looks like all the high velocity- high force pedaling for me happens on the flats.

RChung

Well, perhaps it does but I've never been able to understand why, which is the reason I was asking.

On steep hills, we know that the aero component of drag is pretty small and the main component of power is just to lift the weight of you and the bike. That part of power is linear with speed (the aero component is, of course, cubic with speed). For any given gear ratio, speed is linear with cadence -- so for any given gear ratio, on a steep hill power varies linearly with cadence. As you say, power = torque * cadence so if power varies linearly with cadence on a steep hill for any given gear ratio, crank torque is constant.

So once you're in your lowest gear, it doesn't matter whether you pedal at 50 rpm or 80 rpm (or 40 rpm or 90 rpm) -- the crank torque is almost constant. In fact, pedaling faster doesn't reduce crank torque, it increases it (slightly). That is, once you're in your lowest gear, pedaling at 80 rpm doesn't put less strain on your legs than pedaling at 50 rpm -- it's almost exactly the same.

So you can see why I've been puzzled about appropriate cadence. On a steep hill, crank torque is almost entirely determined by gear ratio, and almost entirely independent of cadence.

ModeratedUser17082018

This may be fine for the young and/or fit person, but not for the rest of us. After a major cardiac event, I always wear a heart rate monitor. My goal is to keep my heart rate as low as possible for as long as possible.

Advising that everyone get their heart rate up and keep it up may not be the wisest counsel. No disrespect intended as I normally find your posts quite informative and enjoyable.

Good health to all!

Heathpack 

I don't think anyone posting here was commenting on what you should do, or what cyclists should do universally. People have been responding to OP and the responses were specific to one person, considering what that one person was trying to accomplish & what he hold us about his strengths & limitations. @LGHT did not mention any cardiac issues until later in the thread, at which time he was basically told, 'nevermind, listen to your cardiologist'.

Huge important concept is that I personally can't imagine ever posting or advocating what cyclists should do universally. I'm a bit of an outlier myself in the world of cycling & frequently get advice that's suited to a man, or someone younger, or someone with different goals/aspirations, etc. Im not a 28 yo male crit racer nor a 55 year old female rando rider. I dont ride just to experience the wind in my hair or to admire the scenery (although I do admire fine scenery quite frequently). Its not just about managing weight. All those paradigms present unique training challenges, but since none of them represent my paradigm, the advice given may not pertain. I've come to realize that it's just a hard thing to really visualize what someone else is doing on a bike, so if you're going to give someone advice, you actually have to try to listen to what he/she is asking & learn about what he/she is doing or trying to do. And that's exactly what happened in this thread. No one gave any universal rules.

Carbonfiberboy 

Well I don't really understand it either. I just observe and practice.

Look at it this way: at the gym, the max you can squat is determined by the number of reps you squat. So your 1RM is larger than your 10RM, which is much larger than your 30RM. If you want to go for your one hour of steady squatting RM, that weight is going to approach zero. Crank torque is sort of like that. The crank torque you're going to be comfortable with for a long period is going to be smaller than what you can do for a short period. Lab studies show the lowest oxygen consumption per unit power at low cadences, ~55 IIRC. But also show that long period high power output is best at high cadences because the legs just give out at high crank torques after ~20 minutes.

You're ignoring that we are all power limited. Only considering climbs, most sport riders climb at the highest power they can manage, considering the length of the hill, the length of the ride, how they feel that day, etc. However that may be, they're going to climb in a very narrow power band, maybe 5% of output wide. Sure they'll increase power on the short rises and back off when it get less steep, but they won't want to get outside the zone in which they're trying to ride.

So that fact that at a given crank torque, power varies linearly with cadence, while true is in a way irrelevant except to sprinters. More to the point is that, climbing at a given power, when torque goes down, cadence goes up and vice versa. So the sport rider is always balancing torque against cadence.

I seems to me that this balance will vary among individuals, depending both on their physiology and training. One of my riding friends, an age group national champion, rides an unusually slow cadence, ~60 on the flat. He climbs mountain passes on a 90" fixie. His legs just don't seem to tire at very high crank torques. He's on another level. OTOH, most randonneurs with whom I ride habitually use a high cadence. Many of them climb at cadences ~90. This makes sense because they are in a "ride forever" mode, thus they train and ride in a way to spare their legs as much as possible. Oxygen is free and glycogen is limited.

My freely chosen climbing cadence, while individual to me, is within the range of the usual climbing cadences I observe among ordinary club riders: about 75 to 85. Thus I gear my bikes so that I can use my freely chosen cadence range on all the long climbs within my usual riding territory, and that was what I was advising the OP to do. My guess would be that he, not being particularly unusual, would climb better using a higher cadence at a lower crank torque. The test I gave him showed that his limitation was not crank torque, but rather power, just like most of us. A bigger cassette and longer chain isn't very expensive and would be a simple way to explore what his freely chosen climbing cadence might be.

Edit: above I used the phrase "freely chosen cadence." More to the point of this discussion, one might substitute "freely chosen crank torque" for that phrase wherever it appears.

LGHT

Ok getting to 157 and up won't be a problem, but I'll have to really work on keeping it above 157 for 15 minutes. Would it be better to try and do 2 intervals of 10 minutes or 1 interval at 15? I just looked at my route and I have 2 big climbs that I currently average 10 min to do. I know if I push hard I can probably maintain that max hr for the entire climb, but after I'm done it's all downhill.

I'm in the "high risk" category for heart disease and it runs in my family so I try and get a stress test and checkup at least once a year. No problems yet, but my doctor said the best way to avoid it is to stay active. The only good thing is my resting HR is now around 153.

I agree which is why I'm here asking often and really appreciate all the help from everyone. The training info I read "seemed" to be something I needed to work on, but after looking at it further it seems my weakest link isn't my leg strength it's my gearing and aerobic fitness so back to the training that will actually help me get to MY next level. I just picked up a smaller cassette that will allow me to spin more since my stock 11-28 isn't really geared for the climbs I'm doing and max HR training will probably work well because I usually only get a few hours of a training in a week.

Carbonfiberboy 

It's best to do what you can do. Sure, 2 X 10' will work great. When you can hold the HR for those, try 3 X 10. Then try a 15' interval. It's common to do 3 X 15' or 2 X 20'. Few do more than that.

Be careful to recover well between hard rides. Here's a good read about preventing overtraining:
overtraining prevention

LGHT

Ok i'll start with 20 2 10's and try and improve on that.

As far as the article that's a great and interesting read bookmarked for sure. In the past I knew I was over training, but I was too impatient to go slow and wait for results. Now due to my limited training opportunities it's not that much of a problem. However once I start added in more time on the trainer I'll have to do the test to see if my HR rises too quickly.

Carbonfiberboy 

One of my riding buddies is a physiologist whose main professional interest has been the study of nitric oxide production, particularly during exercise. You will find the following of interest vis-a-vis a family history of heart disease:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/arti...-human-biology
https://antiagingworld.net/exercise-fit/
Continuous vs interval training on glycemic control and macro- and microvascular reactivity in type 2 diabetic patients - Mitranun - 2013 - Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports - Wiley Online Library
Continuous vs interval training on glycemic control and macro- and microvascular reactivity in type 2 diabetic patients - Mitranun - 2013 - Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports - Wiley Online Library
Impact of interval versus steady state exercise on nitric oxide production in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. - PubMed - NCBI

RR3

So, do I ask my Doc to write me a script for Sildenafil Sulfate or does Tadalafil help with the big ring workouts. I want something to levitate me up those hills, maybe Levitra is the ticket.